Advertisement

Intellectual Property, Taxation and State Aid Law

  • Cécile BrokelindEmail author
Chapter
  • 880 Downloads
Part of the MPI Studies in Tax Law and Public Finance book series (MPISTUD, volume 6)

Abstract

This contribution on Intellectual Property, Taxation and State Aid Law investigates whether some tax incentives for Research and Development—and Innovation (R&D or R&D&I) adopted by EU Member States are in line with the legal framework of State Aid rules in the context of the EU policy objectives and of article 179 TFEU. The main issue is to know whether output tax incentives such as Patent Box regimes could be considered as selective State aid by the ECJ. The chapter considers this issue both prior to any amendments suggested by the OECD BEPS Action 5, and after potential implementation of the modified nexus approach. The result of this investigation shows that some features of the patent box regimes could trigger the application of article 107 (1) TFEU. Additionally, a notification under the State aid modernization rules would not lead to a positive decision as several doubts remain on how output tax incentives such as Patent box regimes remedy the market failures for which a State aid is granted, i.e. increasing R&D&I in the EU (and not in one Member State only).

Keywords

Intellectual Property Right Nexus Approach General Block Exemption Regulation Nexus Requirement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderman S, Schmidt H (2011) EU competition law and intellectual property rights. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Arginelli P (2015) Innovation through R&D tax incentives: some ideas for a fair and transparent tax policy. World Tax J 7(1):3–71Google Scholar
  3. Avi-Yonah R (2015) Advanced introduction to international tax law. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloom N, Griffith R, van Reenen J (2002) Do R&D tax credits work? Evidence from a panel of countries 1979–1997. J Public Econ 85:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloom N, Schankerman M, van Reenen J (2007) Identifying technology spillovers and product market rivalry. NBER Working Paper 13060. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Brokelind C (2011) Risk capital incentives, a risky business? Eur Tax 52(1):11–19Google Scholar
  7. Cisnero M (2014a) Individual contribution to the consultation on the Draft Union Framework for State Aid for R&D&I of 14 February 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2013_state_aid_rdi/cisneros_mario_en.pdf. Accessed 1 October 2015
  8. Cisnero M (2014b) The role of State aid law in promoting a pro-innovation policy – a review from the perspective of public-private R&D cooperation. Intersentia, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Council of the European Union (1999) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83/1 of 27 March 1999Google Scholar
  10. Council of the European Union (2015) Council Regulation of 13 July 2015 (EU) 2015/1588 (codification) on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of horizontal State aid, OJ EU (2015) L/248Google Scholar
  11. Danon R (2015) General Report IFA: Tax Incentives for R&D, Cahiers de droit fiscal international, Vol. 100A. Sdu Uitgevers, The Hague, pp 17–56Google Scholar
  12. ECOFIN Council (2013) Conclusions of 12 November 2013Google Scholar
  13. EFTA Surveillance Authority (2011) Decision No: 177/11/COL, case No: 69131 of 1 June 2011Google Scholar
  14. European Union (2006) Community Guidelines on state aid to promote risk capital investments in small and medium-sized enterprises, 2006/C 194/02Google Scholar
  15. European Commission (1998) Commission Notice on the application of State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation, OJ C-384/3 of 10 December 1998Google Scholar
  16. European Commission (2005) Commission Decision No. N 354/2004, Irish holding regime, OJ C 131, 28 May 2005Google Scholar
  17. European Commission (2008) Commission Decision No. N 480/2007, The Reduction of tax from intangible assets (Spain) (OJ C 80, 8 01 April 2008)Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (2009) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee—Promoting Good Governance in Tax Matters, COM(2009) 201 final, 28 April 2009Google Scholar
  19. European Commission (2010a) Europe 2020- A Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020 final, 3 March 2010Google Scholar
  20. European Commission (2010b) Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative- Innovation Union, COM (2010) 546 final, 6 October 2010Google Scholar
  21. European Commission (2011) Commission Decision No. 480/2007, The Reduction of tax from intangible assets (Spain) (OJ C 80, 8 01.04.2008)Google Scholar
  22. European Commission (2012) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on EU State Aid Modernisation (SAM), COM 2012/0209 final, 8 May 2012Google Scholar
  23. European Commission (2013a) Commission Regulation No. 1473/2013 of 24 December 2013, OJ L 352/1Google Scholar
  24. European Commission (2013b) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1407/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid, OJEU (2013) L 352Google Scholar
  25. European Commission (2014a) Communication Framework for State Aid on research and development and innovation, OJ C 198/1 of 27 June 2014Google Scholar
  26. European Commission (2014b) A study on R&D tax incentives, Final Report. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  27. European Commission (2014c) Communication from the Commission. Draft Commission Notice on the notion of State aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEUGoogle Scholar
  28. European Commission (2014d) A study on R&D tax incentives. European Commission Taxation Papers, Working Paper No. 52Google Scholar
  29. European Commission (2014e) General Blocked Exempt Regulation of (EU) 651/2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty, OJ L 187/1 of 26 June 2014Google Scholar
  30. European Commission (2015) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, A Fair and Efficient Corporate Tax System in the European Union: 5 Keys Area for Action, COM(2015) 302 Final, 17 June 2015Google Scholar
  31. Evers L, Miller C, Spengel C (2015) Intellectual property box regimes: effective tax rates and tax policy considerations. Int Tax Public Financ 22(3):502–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Griffith R, Miller H, O’Connell M (2011) Corporate taxes and the location of intellectual property: Simulating the effects of Patent Boxes. Institute for Fiscal Studies, IFS Briefing Note 112. http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn112.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2016
  33. Griffith R, Miller H, O’Connell M (2014) Ownership of intellectual property and corporate taxation. J Public Econ 112:12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hansson Å, Brokelind C (2014) Tax incentives, tax expenditures theories in R&D: the case of Sweden. World Tax J 6(2):168–200Google Scholar
  35. Luja R (2015) EU Report IFA: Tax incentives for R&D, Cahiers de droit fiscal international, Vol. 100A. Sdu Uitgevers, The Hague, pp 57–76Google Scholar
  36. Luts J (2014) Compatibility of patent box regimes with EU State aid rules and code of conduct. EC Tax Rev 23(5):258–283Google Scholar
  37. Mathieu A, van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B (2010) A note on the drivers of R&D intensity. Res World Econ 1(1):56–65Google Scholar
  38. Matteotti R, Roth P (2015a) The OECD’s modified nexus approach for patent boxes- Is BEPS leading towards coherence or distortion in taxing income from intellectual property? ASA (83):755–780Google Scholar
  39. Matteotti R, Roth P (2015b) Tax incentives on research and development. Archives de droit fiscal Suisse May/June 2015. Special issue IFA Basel 2015. www.asa.online. Acceded 26 April 2016
  40. Micheau C, De la Brousse GC (2013) Case studies of tax issues on selectivity: analysis of the patent box scheme and the reduced taxation of foreign-source interest income. In: Rust A, Micheau C (eds) State aid and tax law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 153–173Google Scholar
  41. Obuoforibo BR (2013) The technical aspects of the UK patent box rules. Eur Tax 53(10):1–11Google Scholar
  42. OECD (2002) Frascati manual: proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development, 6th edn. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  43. OECD (2013) Supporting investment in knowledge capital, growth and innovation. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  44. OECD (2014) Countering harmful tax practices more effectively, taking into account transparency and substance, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  45. OECD (2015) Countering harmful tax practices more effectively, taking into account transparency and substance, Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Palazzi P (2011) Taxation and innovation, OECD Taxation Working Papers No. 9. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  47. Schön W (1999) Taxation and State aid in the European Union. Common Mark Law Rev 36(5):911–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schön W (2015) Neutrality and territoriality- competing or converging concepts in European tax law. Bull Int Tax 69(4/5):271–293Google Scholar
  49. Schovsbo J (2012) IPR’s constitutionalization and expansion: can the “common goals” description cope? In: Lidgard HH (ed) Nordic perspectives on competition in innovation markets. Lund University Publications, Lund, pp 39–51Google Scholar
  50. Szudoczky R (2014) The sources of EU law and their relationships: lessons for the field of taxation. IBFD, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  51. Traversa E (2014) Tax incentives and territoriality within the European Union: balancing the internal market with the tax sovereignty of member states. World Tax J 6(3):315–340Google Scholar
  52. World Trade Organization (2015) TRIPS definition. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel1_e.htm. Accessed 1 October 2015
  53. Zammit I (2015) Centralized intellectual property business models, tax implications of EU patent box regimes. Bull Int Tax 69(9):540–549Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations